U.S. patent number 8,131,524 [Application Number 12/127,403] was granted by the patent office on 2012-03-06 for method and system for automating the creation of customer-centric interfaces.
This patent grant is currently assigned to AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.. Invention is credited to Robert R. Bushey, Kurt M. Joseph, Benjamin A. Knott, John M. Martin, Scott H. Mills, Theodore B. Pasquale.
United States Patent |
8,131,524 |
Bushey , et al. |
March 6, 2012 |
Method and system for automating the creation of customer-centric
interfaces
Abstract
An interface is provided by creating prompts for the interface.
The prompts represent tasks to be accomplished by a user and are
obtained based on user input. The prompts are grouped according to
relationships, obtained from the user input, among the tasks. The
interface is updated based on user feedback. Each of the prompts is
designated using user terminology obtained from the user input.
Inventors: |
Bushey; Robert R. (Cedar Park,
TX), Pasquale; Theodore B. (Austin, TX), Mills; Scott
H. (Austin, TX), Martin; John M. (Austin, TX), Knott;
Benjamin A. (Round Rock, TX), Joseph; Kurt M. (Austin,
TX) |
Assignee: |
AT&T Intellectual Property I,
L.P. (Atlanta, GA)
|
Family
ID: |
30119294 |
Appl.
No.: |
12/127,403 |
Filed: |
May 27, 2008 |
Prior Publication Data
|
|
|
|
Document
Identifier |
Publication Date |
|
US 20080313571 A1 |
Dec 18, 2008 |
|
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
Issue Date |
|
|
10217873 |
Aug 13, 2002 |
7379537 |
|
|
|
09532038 |
Mar 21, 2000 |
6778643 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
703/6; 704/4;
704/246; 715/700; 379/88.18; 715/734 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q
10/10 (20130101); G06F 8/20 (20130101); H04M
15/00 (20130101); G10L 15/1822 (20130101) |
Current International
Class: |
G06G
7/48 (20060101) |
Field of
Search: |
;379/88.18
;715/700,704,716,727,745,734 ;703/6 ;704/4,246 |
References Cited
[Referenced By]
U.S. Patent Documents
Foreign Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
00/33548 |
|
Jun 2000 |
|
WO |
|
00/73968 |
|
Dec 2000 |
|
WO |
|
Other References
Kelly, "From Intelligent Call Routing to Intelligent Contact
Management", Call Center Solutions, vol. 19, No. 3, 4 pages, (Sep.
2000). cited by other .
"Call Center Roundup", Teleconnect, 10 pages, (Dec. 1998). cited by
other .
"Call Centers: Sales, service and Competitive Advantage,"Canadian
Business, vol. 70, No. 2, 8 pages, (Feb. 1997). cited by other
.
Foster, "Advanced Definity Call Centers: Working for You and Your
Customers,"AT&T Technology, vol. 9, No. 2, 7 pages, (Summer
1994). cited by other .
Card, S.K., et al., The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction,
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, (1983). cited by other .
Hart et al. "Development of the NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results
of Empirical and Theoretical Research". In P.A. Hancock and N.
Meshkati (Eds.), Human Mental Workload. (pp. 139-183) Amsterdam:
North-Holland, (1988). cited by other .
John et al. "using GOMS for User Interface Design and Evaluation:
Which technique?", ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction,
3 (4). 287-319, (1996). cited by other .
Shingledecker, "Operator Strategy: A Neglected Variable in Workload
Assessment", The American Psychological Association, Division 21
Symposium on "Mental Workload Measurement: The Theory Application
Interface."Montreal, Quebec, Canada: American Psychological
Association (1980). cited by other .
Wei "Mental Load and Performance at Different Automation Level."
The Netherlands: Delft University. Applicants particularly call the
Examiner's attention to pp. 28-38, (1997). cited by other .
Wirwille et al. "Recommendations for Mental Workload Measurement in
a Test and Evaluation Environment." Human Factors, 35 (2), 263-281,
(1993). cited by other .
American Corp., "Ameritech Phone-Based UI Standards: Dialogue
Design", downloaded from
ameritech.com/corporate/testtown/library/standard/pbix4.html,
(1998). cited by other .
Inter VoiceBrite, Inc., "AgentConnect Call Center Platform
Brochure," no date available. cited by other .
ACD Learning Center Tutorial series, ACD Call Center Online
Learning Center, call-center.net/ivr-series.htm. cited by other
.
"Customer Management Technology", TeleTech, downloaded from
teletech.com/solutions/cmt.htm>, (Dec. 2001). cited by other
.
"Products & Services--Interactive Voice Response (IVR)",
Prairie Systems, downloaded from prairiesys.com/PSI/p.sub.--s
interactive.sub.--sol.htm. cited by other .
"RVS Voice", IMessageing Systems, Inc., downloaded from
imessagingsystems.com/improds/rvsvoice/rvsvoice/rvsvoice.htm. cited
by other .
"What's Next in Interactive Voice Response,"International Nortel
Networks Meridian Users Group, downloaded from
innmug.org/information/kirvan.html, InnTouch, (Dec. 2000). cited by
other .
Kobayashi, "Information Presentation based on Individual User
Interests,"Second International Conference, IEEE, pp. 375-383,
(Apr. 1998). cited by other .
Sgouros, "Dynamic Dramatization of Multimedia Story Presentations",
ACM, pp. 87-94, (1997). cited by other .
Murtaugh, "The Automatist Storytelling System," Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Masters Thesis, (1996). cited by other
.
Brooks, "Do Story Agents Use Rocking Chars: The Theory and
Implementation of One Model for Computational
Narrative,"Proceedings of the forth ACM International Multimedia
conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, ACM Press (1996). cited
by other .
Szekely, "Retrospective and Challenges for Model-Based Interface
development,"USC Information Science Institute, (1996). cited by
other .
Maybury, "Automating the Generation of Coordinated Multimedia
Explanations," Intelligent Multi-Media Interfaces, AAAI/MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1993, Chapter 5: Fiener et al. (1993). cited by
other .
Stanfield et al., "Toward Memory-Based Reasoning", Communications
of the ACM, vol. 29, No. 12, ACM Press, (Dec. 1986). cited by other
.
Orwant, "Doppelganger Goes to School: Machine Learning for User
Modeling", MIT MS Thesis, (Sep. 1993). cited by other .
Orwant, "For want of a bit the user was lost: Cheap user modeling",
IBM Systems Journal, vol. 35, Nos. 3 & 4, pp. 398-416, (1996).
cited by other .
Shardanard, "Social Information Filtering for Music
Recommendation," MIT MS Thesis, (Sep. 1994). cited by other .
Maes, "From Animals to Animals 2: Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior,
Behavior based Artificial Intelligence," MIT Media Laboratory
(1992). cited by other .
Kellner et al., "PADIS--An Automatic Telephone Switchboard and
Directory information System," Speech Communication, (Oct. 1997).
cited by other .
Carpenter et al., "Natural Language Call Routing : a Robust,
Self-Organizing Approach," Lucent Technologies Bell Laboratories,
(1998). cited by other .
Press release, "Lucent Technologies Announces Trial of Natural
Language Call Routing Technology" (Dec. 1997). cited by other .
Riccardi et al., "A spoken Language system for Automated Call
Routing," 1997 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech,
and Signal. cited by other .
U.S. Appl. No. 09/578,904 to Bushey et al. cited by other .
U.S. Appl. No. 09/578,723 to Bushey et al. cited by other .
Lieberman, H., et al., "Let's Browse: A Collaborative Web Browsing
Agent" (Jan. 1999). cited by other .
U.S. Appl. No. 10/188,152, filed Jul. 2, 2002 by Mills et al. and
entitled "Method and System for Automated Categorization of
Statements". cited by other .
U.S. Appl. No. 10/230,708, filed Aug. 29, 2002 by Knott et al. and
entitled Method, System and Apparatus for Providing an Adaptive
Persona in Speech-based Interactive Voice Response Systems. cited
by other .
U.S. Appl. No. 10/217,863, filed Aug. 13, 2002 by Mills et al. and
"System and Method for the Automated Analysis of Performance Data".
cited by other .
Chu-Carroll et al., "Vector-based Natural Language Call Routing",
Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 361-388. (1999).
cited by other.
|
Primary Examiner: Shah; Kamini S
Assistant Examiner: Gebresilassie; Kibrom
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Greenblum & Bernstein,
P.L.C.
Parent Case Text
RELATED PATENT APPLICATION
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser.
No. 10/217,873, filed Aug. 13, 2002, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,379,537,
which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No.
09/532,038, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,778,643, filed Mar. 21, 2000, the
disclosures of which are expressly incorporated herein by reference
in their entireties.
Claims
What is claimed is:
1. A method for providing a plurality of prompts, comprising:
creating the plurality of prompts for an interface to at least one
hardware component, each of the plurality of prompts representing
tasks to be accomplished by a user, and each of the plurality of
prompts being obtained based on user input and a grouping of the
tasks according to a determination of comparative similarity
obtained from the user input, among the tasks; and modifying the
interface based on user feedback obtained from test users
interacting with the plurality of prompts, wherein wording for each
of the plurality of prompts is designated using a phrase created by
the test users providing the user input using the test users' own
words.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the interface is
graphically represented.
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the interface comprises
an interactive voice system.
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the interface
determines a structure of a website.
5. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: developing
content for a website based on the interface.
6. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: ordering
the plurality of prompts according to frequencies of occurrence for
tasks corresponding to each of the plurality of prompts.
7. A system implemented on at least one processor for providing a
plurality of prompts, comprising: a customer language engine
executable by the at least one processor to receive user input and
to create the plurality of prompts for an interface to at least one
hardware component, each of the plurality of prompts representing
tasks to be accomplished by a user, and each of the plurality of
prompts being obtained based on the user input and a grouping of
the tasks according to a determination of comparative similarity
obtained from the user input, among the tasks; and a customer
performance engine executable by the at least one processor that
modifies the interface based on user feedback obtained from test
users interacting with the plurality of prompts, wherein wording
for each of the plurality of prompts is designated using a phrase
created by the test users providing the user input using the test
users' own words.
8. The system according to claim 7, wherein the tasks comprise
action data that describes an action the user would like to perform
with respect to an object.
9. The system according to claim 8, wherein the tasks further
comprise object data that describes the object upon which the
action is performed.
10. The system according to claim 9, wherein the object data
comprises user-specific data stored by the system.
11. The system according to claim 8, wherein the action data
comprises data relating to at least one of accessing and
interacting with the object.
12. The system according to claim 9, wherein the customer language
engine is executable by the at least one processor to create a
system-generated task by combining object data obtained from a
first task with action data obtained from a second task.
13. The system according to claim 7, wherein the user input is not
based on predetermined input.
14. The system according to claim 7, wherein the user input is
obtained from at least one of a telephone call, an electronic mail,
and a submission via a website.
15. The system according to claim 7, wherein the user feedback is
obtained by monitoring the user interacting with the plurality of
prompts for the interface.
16. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer
program, recorded on the computer readable medium, for providing a
plurality of prompts, the medium comprising: a customer language
code segment, recorded on the computer readable medium, executable
to create the plurality of prompts for an interface to at least one
hardware component, each of the plurality of prompts representing
tasks to be accomplished by a user, and each of the plurality of
prompts being obtained based on user input and a grouping of the
tasks according to a determination of comparative similarity
obtained from the user input, among the tasks; and a customer
performance code segment, recorded on the computer readable medium,
executable to modify the interface based on user feedback obtained
from test users interacting with the plurality of prompts, wherein
wording for each of the plurality of prompts is designated using a
phrase created by the test users providing the user input using the
test users' own words.
17. The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim
16, further comprising: a task frequency code segment, recorded on
the computer readable medium, executable to determine a frequency
of occurrence for each of the tasks, and wherein the customer
language code segment creates the plurality of prompts, based on
the frequency of occurrence for each of the tasks, using the using
the user terminology.
18. The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim
16, wherein modifying the interface comprises modifying the
plurality of prompts based on an accuracy score for accomplishing a
specified task using the interface.
19. The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim
18, wherein the customer performance code segment modifies the
interface based on response times for accomplishing the specified
task using the interface.
20. The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim
16, wherein the at least one hardware component comprises a
computing device.
Description
TECHNICAL FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates generally to interface designs, and
more specifically relates to a system and method for automating the
creation of customer-centric interfaces.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Every year, company service centers typically receive numerous
telephone calls from customers seeking assistance with particular
tasks. The customers often speak with customer service
representatives (CSR) to complete their tasks. Because of the cost
associated with CSR time, companies are switching over to automated
systems such as interactive voice response (IVR) systems where IVR
systems answer the customer phone calls and direct the customer
phone calls to the correct service center using one or more menus
of options. The IVR systems allow customers to complete their tasks
without the assistance of a CSR. In order to maintain a high level
of customer satisfaction, an IVR system must be designed so that
customers can easily navigate the various menus and accomplish
their tasks without spending too much time on the telephone and
becoming frustrated and unsatisfied with the company and its
customer service. Many IVR systems are designed around how
companies are organized which can make navigation of the IVR system
difficult for the customers because although the customers know
what task they want to accomplish, the customers typically do not
know which departments within a company organization manage which
tasks.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
A more complete understanding of the present embodiments and
advantages thereof may be acquired by referring to the following
description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in
which like reference numbers indicate like features, and
wherein:
FIG. 1 depicts a block diagram of a system for the automated
creation of a customer-centric interface;
FIG. 2 depicts a flow diagram of a method for automating the
creation of a customer-centric interface;
FIG. 3 depicts an example task frequency table;
FIG. 4 illustrates a block flow diagram of various components of
the system for automated creation of a customer-centric interface;
and
FIG. 5 illustrates a flow diagram of a method for creating
customer-centric menu prompts.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
Preferred embodiments of the present invention are illustrated in
the figures, like numerals being used to refer to like and
corresponding parts of the various drawings.
Many companies that have customer service programs and/or call
centers, such as telephone companies, Internet service providers,
and credit card companies, typically have automated systems such as
interactive voice response (IVR) systems that answer and direct
customer phone calls when a customer calls seeking assistance for a
particular task such as to change an address or inquire about
payment of a bill. If a customer does not reach an IVR system when
calling a service number, the customer may speak with a customer
service representative (CSR) who either helps the customer or
transfers the customer to an IVR. Within the IVR, the customer
listens to one or more prerecorded menus or prompts and provides
responses using either touch-tone input or speech input in order to
accomplish their task. Therefore, the content and structure of the
IVR including the prerecorded menus or prompts needs to allow for
customers to easily and quickly accomplish their tasks with little
frustration.
The typical approach to IVR system interface design involves a
company design team creating a set of requirements where the design
team is comprised of various individuals representing different
departments within the company. The design team incorporates
various perspectives and documents from the team members in
designing the IVR interface. The design team decides how best to
structure the interface based on their understanding of the
underlying system and the organization of the company and the
customers' preferences and level of knowledge are generally not
taken into account.
Once designed, the IVR interface is tested to ensure functionality
and that it is error free. The inclusion of customers into the
design process occurs late in the development phase, if it all,
through the usability testing. But much of the customer input
gathered in the usability testing will not be implemented into the
IVR interface because of the costs involved with making changes
late in the development phase and only significant errors
discovered through the usability testing are generally corrected.
The result is an IVR interface having a business-centric
organization and structure where the menu options and prompts are
structured according to the organization of the company and are
worded using company terminology.
When calling a customer service number, customers know why they are
calling (to accomplish a specific task) but typically do not know
which department within a company handles specific tasks.
Therefore, business-centric interfaces generally do not allow for
customers to easily and quickly navigate and accomplish their tasks
with little frustration since business-centric interfaces are
designed around a company's organization and way of thinking. When
customers cannot quickly and easily accomplish their tasks, they
generally make incorrect selections within the IVR interface
resulting in misdirected calls. Misdirected calls are expensive to
companies both in the time and money spent dealing with a
misdirected call and in lower levels of customer satisfaction
resulting from unpleasant customer experiences with
business-centric interfaces which can lead to negative feelings
towards the company.
By contrast, the example embodiment described herein allows for the
automated creation of a customer-centric interface. The
customer-centric interface is designed to best represent the
customers' preferences and levels of knowledge and understanding.
Additionally, the example embodiment allows for the inclusion of
the customers in the design process from the beginning to ensure
that the customer-centric interface is both usable and useful for
the customers. The customer-centric interface allows for the
customers to quickly and easily navigate the various menus within
the customer-centric interface to accomplish their tasks with high
levels of customer satisfaction. The customer-centric design also
allows for increased call routing accuracy and a reduction in the
number of misdirected calls. Therefore, companies save time and
money because less time is spent dealing with misdirected calls and
less resources are used by the customers since the customers spend
less time within the customer-centric interface accomplishing their
tasks.
Referring now to FIG. 1, a block diagram depicts customer-centric
interface system 10 for automating the creation of customer-centric
interfaces. In the example embodiment, customer-centric interface
system 10 may include respective software components and hardware
components, such as processor 12, memory 14, input/output ports 16,
hard disk drive (HDD) 18 containing databases 20, 22, 24, 26, and
28 and those components may work together via bus 30 to provide the
desired functionality. The various hardware and software components
may also be referred to as processing resources. Customer-centric
interface system 10 may be a personal computer, a server, or any
other appropriate computing device. Customer-centric interface
system 10 may further include a display and input devices such as a
mouse and a keyboard. Customer-centric interface system 10 also
includes collection engine 32, customer language engine 34, task
frequency engine 36, customer structure engine 38, and customer
performance engine 40, which reside in memory such as HDD 18 and
are executable by processor 12 through bus 30. In alternate
embodiments, HDD 18 may include more or less than five
databases.
FIG. 2 depicts a flow diagram of a method for automating the
creation of a customer-centric interface. The method begins at step
50 and at step 52 collection engine 32 collects a plurality of
customer opening statements. When a customer calls a service number
and speaks to a CSR, the customer typically tells the CSR the
purpose of the call in the first substantive statement the customer
makes. Alternatively, a customer may contact a company via the
company web site or email and generally the first substantive
statement made in the email or web site response includes the
customer's purpose for contacting the company. These initial
statements containing the purpose of the customer's call are often
referred to as customer opening statements. Collection engine 32
collects the customer opening statements from customer service
centers and stores the customer opening statement in customer
opening statement database 20.
The customer opening statements provide insight into the tasks that
the customers inquire about as well as the language or terminology
the customers use to describe the tasks. At step 54, customer
language engine 34 analyzes the customer opening statements to
determine the language or terminology used by the customers when
referring to particular tasks. When customers call a service
number, they are not concerned with how the company is going to
accomplish the task just that the task gets accomplished.
Therefore, customer language engine 34 must learn and use the
terminology of the customers in creating customer-centric menu
prompts so that customers will be able to easily understand and
identify how to accomplish their tasks when using the
customer-centric interface.
At step 56, customer task model 150 within collection engine 32
determines the different reasons why the customers contact the
company in order to create a list of tasks for which the customers
access the customer-centric interface. Analysis of the customer
opening statements allows for the determined tasks to be tested to
see if the list of tasks accounts for a majority of the reasons why
the customer contact the company. The tasks may include such tasks
as "telephone line is not working," "question about my bill,"
"order a new service," or any other appropriate reason for a
customer to call seeking assistance regarding a product or
service.
Once the list of tasks has been created and determined to cover the
majority of the customers' reasons for calling, task frequency
engine 36 determines a task frequency of occurrence for each task
at step 58. The task frequency of occurrence allows
customer-centric interface system 10 to recognize which tasks
customers are calling about the most and which tasks the customers
are calling about the least. Task frequency engine 36 determines
the task frequency of occurrence by examining and categorizing the
customer opening statements. Each customer opening statement is
examined to identify the purpose of the call and is then
categorized as a particular task.
Once the customer opening statements have been categorized, task
frequency engine 36 creates a task frequency table that ranks the
tasks according to the task frequency of occurrence. The task
frequency table details how often customers call with specific
problems or questions about each particular task. An example task
frequency table 100 for eighteen tasks 108-142 is shown in FIG. 3
and includes column 102 for the frequency rank of the task, column
104 for the task, and column 106 for the frequency value. In
alternate embodiments, task frequency table 100 may include more or
less than eighteen tasks. Task frequency table 100 shows that
eighteen tasks account for more than 80% of the customer opening
statements or service calls received from the customers. Task
frequency table 100 allows for customer-centric interface system 10
to determine which tasks the customers call about the most and
provides valuable information on how to arrange the
customer-centric menu prompts within the customer-centric
interface.
Task frequency table 100 is ordered in descending frequency order
and is a statistically valid representation of the tasks that the
customers inquire about when calling customer service centers.
Because having a menu prompt for every single task results in
numerous menu prompts making customer navigation of the
customer-centric interface burdensome and slow, at step 60 task
frequency engine 36 determines which tasks are to be included in
the customer-centric interface. In order to allow easy and quick
navigation for the customers but at the same time not utilize too
many company resources operating the customer-centric interface,
only the most frequently occurring tasks are included within the
customer-centric interface.
Task frequency engine 36 utilizes task frequency table 100 to
determine which tasks are to be included in the customer-centric
interface. In one embodiment, task frequency engine 36 includes
only the tasks that have a frequency of occurrence of 1% or higher
Task frequency table 100 includes only the tasks having a frequency
of occurrence of 1% or higher and includes eighteen tasks
accounting for 80.20% of the tasks represented in the customer
opening statement. In an alternate embodiment, task frequency
engine 36 includes tasks so that the total number of included tasks
accounts for a specified percentage coverage of the tasks
represented in the customer opening statements. For instance, task
frequency engine 36 may include a specified number of tasks so that
the total frequency of occurrence is a specific total percentage
coverage value such as 85%, 90% or any other appropriate percentage
of coverage. Either embodiment typically allows for between fifteen
and twenty tasks to be included in the customer-centric
interface.
For efficient operation, the customer-centric interface does not
include an opening customer-centric menu prompt listing all of the
included tasks in frequency order. Such an opening menu prompt
would take too long for the customers to listen to and would not
allow for quick and easy navigation of the customer-centric
interface. Therefore, the customer-centric interface is of a
hierarchical design with the tasks grouped together by task
relationships.
In order for the customer-centric interface to be organized from
the vantage of the customers, the included tasks need to be grouped
according to how the customers perceive the tasks to be related.
Therefore at step 62, customer structure engine 38 elicits from one
or more test customers each customer's perceptions as to how the
included tasks relate to each other in order to create interface
structure for the customer-centric interface. Interface structure
is how the tasks are placed within the customer-centric interface
and organized and grouped within the customer-centric menu prompts.
For instance, the interface structure of a web page refers to how
the pages, objects, menu items, and information is organized
relative to each other while the interface structure for an IVR
system refers to the sequence and grouping of the tasks within the
customer-centric menu prompts. The interface structure for the
customer-centric interface needs to allow for the customers to find
information and complete tasks as quickly as possible without
confusion.
Customer structure engine 38 uses tasks 108-142 from task frequency
table 100 and performs customer exercises with the customers to
elicit customer feedback regarding how the customers relate and
group together tasks 108-142. For instance, customer structure
engine 38 may require a group of test customers to group tasks
108-142 into one or more groups of related tasks. In addition,
customer structure engine 38 may also require the test customers to
make comparative judgments regarding the similarity of two or more
of the tasks where the test customers state how related or
unrelated they believe the tasks to be. Furthermore, customer
structure engine 38 may require the test customers to rate the
relatedness of the tasks on a scale. Customer structure engine 38
performs the customer exercises using a test IVR system, a web
site, or any other appropriate testing means. In addition to
eliciting tasks relationships, customer structure engine 38 also
elicits from the test customers general names or headings that can
be used to describe the groups of tasks in the customers own
language or terminology.
Once customer structure engine 38 elicits from the test customers
how the customers perceive tasks 108-142 to relate to each other,
customer structure engine 38 aggregates the customer feedback and
analyzes the customer feedback to determine customer perceived task
relationships. The customer perceived task relationships are how
the customers perceive the tasks to be related. Customer structure
engine 38 represents the customer perceived task relationships in a
numerical data matrix of relatedness scores that represents
collectively the customers' perceived relatedness of the included
tasks.
At step 64, customer structure engine 38 utilizes the customer
perceived task relationships and the numerical data matrix and
combines the included tasks into one or more groups of related
tasks. For example, using the customer feedback from the customer
exercises, customer structure engine 38 determines that the
customers perceive tasks 114, 136, and 140 as related and group
one, tasks 128, 130, and 138 as related and group two, tasks 108,
110, 112, 116, 120, 122, 124, 126, 134, and 142 as related and
group three, and tasks 118 and 132 as related and group four. To
aid in the grouping of the tasks and to better enable the company
to understand the structure and grouping of the tasks, customer
structure engine 38 represents the customer perceived task
relationships and numerical data matrix in a graphical form. For
instance, customer structure engine 38 may generate a flow chart or
indogram illustrating a customer-centric call flow for the groups
of tasks.
At step 66, task frequency engine 36 orders the groups of task and
the tasks within each group based on the task frequency of
occurrence. Task frequency engine 36 determines a frequency of
occurrence for each group of tasks by summing the individual
frequency of occurrences for each task within each group. From the
example above, group one has a group frequency of occurrence of
8.9% (6.7%+1.1%+1.1%), group two has a group frequency of
occurrence of 6.2% (3%+2.1%+1.1%), group three has a group
frequency of occurrence of 59.4%
(14%+11.6%+11.3%+5.6%+3.8%+3.8%+3.5%+3.4%+1.4%+1.0%), and group
four has group frequency of occurrence of 5.7% (3.8%+1.9%). Task
frequency engine 36 orders the groups within customer-centric
interface in descending frequency order so that the tasks having
the highest frequency of occurrence are heard first by the
customers when the customers listen to the customer-centric menu
prompts within the customer-centric interface. Since 59.4% of the
customer will be calling about a task in group three, task
frequency engine 36 orders group three first followed by group one,
group two, and group four.
In addition to ordering the groups of tasks, task frequency engine
36 also orders the tasks within each group. Task frequency engine
36 orders the tasks within each group according to each task's
frequency of occurrence from the highest frequency of occurrence to
the lowest frequency of occurrence. For instance, the tasks in
group one are ordered as task 114, task 136, and task 140. The
tasks in group two are ordered as task 128, task 130, and task 138.
The tasks in group three are ordered as task 108, task 110, task
112, task 116, task 120, task 122, task 124, task 126, task 134,
and task 142. The tasks in group four are ordered as task 118 and
task 132. The grouping and ordering of the tasks allow for the high
frequency tasks to be more accessible to the customers than the low
frequency tasks by placing the tasks having higher frequency of
occurrences higher or earlier in the customer-centric interface
menu prompts.
At step 68, customer language engine 34, task frequency engine 36,
and customer structure engine 38 work together to create and order
the customer-centric menu prompts for the customer-centric
interface. Task frequency engine 36 and customer structure engine
38 do not take into account customer terminology when calculating
task frequencies, grouping the tasks, and ordering the tasks. So
once task frequency engine 36 and customer structure engine 38
create interface structure including ordering the included tasks,
customer language engine 34 creates customer-centric menu prompts
using the customers own terminology. Customer-centric menu prompts
in the language of the customers allow for the customers to more
easily recognize what each menu prompt is asking and allows the
customer to accomplish their tasks quickly and with little
frustration. In alternate embodiments, customer language engine 34
may create customer-centric menu prompts using action specific
object words in addition to the customers own terminology. The use
of action specific object words to create menu prompts is described
in further detail below with respect to FIG. 5.
Once customer-centric interface system 10 creates the
customer-centric menu prompts and the customer-centric interface,
customer performance engine 40 tests the customer-centric interface
at step 70 by performing usability tests. Customer performance
engine 40 performs the usability tests in order to locate and fix
any problems with the customer-centric interface before the
customer-centric interface is implemented for use by all customers.
The usability tests involve laboratory tests where test customers
are asked to accomplish sets of tasks using the customer-centric
interface such as "Call Telephone Company at 555-1111 and change
your billing address." In these tests, the test customers use
telephones to interact with the customer-centric interface. The
customer-centric interface plays the prerecorded customer-centric
menu prompts to the test customers and customer performance engine
40 records information regarding the test customers' responses such
as the menu name for the menus accessed, the amount of time the
prerecorded menu prompt played before the test customer made a
selection or pressed a key, and the key that the test customer
pressed.
When the usability tests conclude, at step 72 customer performance
engine 40 analyzes the results of the usability tests. With respect
to the results, customer performance engine 40 focuses on three
different usability test results: customer satisfaction, task
accomplishment, and response times. Customer satisfaction is
whether or not the test customer was satisfied using the
customer-centric interface. Customer performance engine 40 gathers
customer satisfaction by asking the test customers a variety of
questions regarding their experiences in interacting with the
customer-centric interface such as how satisfied the test customer
was in accomplishing the assigned tasks, how confident the test
customer was about being correctly routed, the level of agreement
between the selected menu prompts and test customers' assigned
tasks, and whether the test customers would want to user the
customer-centric interface again.
Customer performance engine 40 also determines a task
accomplishment or call routing accuracy score. Task accomplishment
measures whether a test customer successfully completes an assigned
task and is based on a sequence of key presses necessary to
navigate the customer-centric interface and accomplish the task.
Customer performance engine 40 determines if the test customers
actually accomplished their assigned task. For example, if a test
customer was assigned the task of using the customer-centric
interface to inquire about their bill, did the test customer
correctly navigate the customer-centric menu prompts in order to
inquire about their bill. Customer performance engine 40 examines
all the different menu prompts accessed by the test customers and
compares the test customer key sequences with the correct key
sequences in order to determine if the test customers accomplished
the assigned tasks.
In addition to customer satisfaction and task accomplishment,
customer performance engine 40 also calculates a response time or
cumulative response time (CRT) for each customer-centric menu
prompt accessed by the test customers. The response time indicates
the amount of time a test customer spends interacting with each
customer-centric menu prompt and the customer-centric interface.
The response times reflects the amount of time the test customers
listen to a menu prompt versus the amount of time it takes for the
menu prompt to play in its entirety. The amount of time the test
customers spend listening to the menu prompt is not a very valuable
number unless menu duration times are also taken into account. A
menu duration time is the amount of time it takes for a menu prompt
to play in its entirety. For instance, a menu prompt may have five
different options to choose from and the menu duration time is the
amount of time it takes for the menu prompt to play through all
five options.
Customer performance engine 40 records a listening time for each
test customer for each menu prompt. The listening time is the time
the test customers actually spend listening to a menu prompt before
making a selection. Customer performance engine 40 also has access
to the menu duration times for all of the customer-centric menu
prompts in the customer-centric interface. Customer performance
engine 40 calculates a response for a menu prompt which is the
difference between the listening time and the menu duration time by
subtracting the menu duration time from the listening time.
For example, if the introductory menu prompt of the
customer-centric interface requires 20 seconds to play in its
entirety (menu duration time) and the test customer listens to the
whole menu and then makes a selection, the test customer has a
listening time of 20 seconds and receives a CRT score or response
time of 0 (20-20=0). If the test customer only listens to part of
the menu prompt, hears their choice and chooses an option before
the whole menu plays, then the test customer receives a negative
CRT score or response time. For instance, if the test customer
chooses option three 15 seconds (listening time) into the
four-option, 20 second menu prompt, the test customer receives a
CRT score or response time of "-5" (15-20=-5). Conversely, the test
customer has a response time of +15 if the test customer repeats
the menu prompt after hearing it once, and then choose option three
15 seconds (35 second listening time) into the second playing of
the menu (35-20=15).
A negative response time is good because the test customer spent
less time in the customer-centric interface than they could have
and a positive response time is bad because the test customer spent
more time than they should have in the customer-centric interface.
In addition to calculating response times for individual menu
prompts, customer performance engine 40 may also calculate response
times for entire tasks and each test customer by summing the menu
duration times and the listening times for each menu prompt
required to accomplish the task and subtracting the total menu
duration time from the total listening time.
Once customer performance engine 40 has determined customer
satisfaction, task accomplishment, and response times, customer
performance engine 40 generates a performance matrix which charts
customer satisfaction, task accomplishment, and response times for
each test customer, each customer-centric menu prompt, and each
task. The performance matrix allows for customer performance engine
40 to determine if any of the customer-centric menu prompts or
tasks have unsatisfactory performance at step 74 by examining the
combination of customer satisfaction, task accomplishment, and
response times and thereby evaluating how well the customer-centric
interface performs. Ideally a customer-centric menu prompt and task
have a high level of customer satisfaction, a negative or zero
response time, and a high rate of task accomplishment. For
unsatisfactory performance, customer performance engine 40 looks
for low customer satisfaction, low task completion, or a high
positive response time. By charting the customer satisfaction, task
accomplishment, and response times on the performance matrix,
customer performance engine 40 can determine when one of the test
results is not satisfactory.
If a customer-centric menu prompt or task has unsatisfactory
performance at step 74, then at step 76 customer performance engine
40 selects the menu prompt or task, at step 78 determines the
reason for the unsatisfactory performance, and at step 80 modifies
the customer-centric menu prompt or task to correct for the
unsatisfactory performance. For example, a task may have a high
level of customer satisfaction and high rate of task accomplishment
but a positive response time. The test customers are accomplishing
the task and are satisfied when interacting with the
customer-centric interface but are spending too much time
interacting with the customer-centric interface as indicated by the
positive response time. The positive response time is not good for
the customer-centric interface because the customers are using
unnecessary resources from the customer-centric interface in the
form of too much time in accomplishing the task. By examining the
menu prompts for the task, customer performance engine 40
determines that the terminology used in the menu prompts for the
task is not the terminology used by the customers. Therefore,
customer performance engine 40 alerts customer language engine 34
to the terminology problem and customer language engine 34 rewords
the menu prompts for the task using the customers own
terminology.
Once customer performance engine 40 locates and corrects the
problem, customer performance engine 40 determines if there are
additional menu prompts or tasks that have unsatisfactory
performance at step 82. If at step 82 there are additional menu
prompts or tasks having unsatisfactory performance, then at step 84
customer performance engine 40 selects the next menu prompt or task
having unsatisfactory performance and returns to step 78. Customer
performance engine 40 repeats steps 78, 80, 82, and 84 until there
are no additional menu prompts or tasks at step 82 having
unsatisfactory performance. When there are no additional menu
prompts or tasks having unsatisfactory performance at step 82, the
process returns to step 70 and customer performance engine 40 tests
the customer-centric interface having the modified menu prompts or
tasks. Customer performance engine 40 repeats steps 70, 72, 74, 76,
78, 80, 82, and 84 until there are no customer-centric menu prompts
or tasks having unsatisfactory performance at step 74.
When there are no customer-centric menu prompts or tasks having
unsatisfactory performance at step 74, at step 86 customer-centric
interface system 10 implements the customer-centric interface for
use by the customers. As customers use the customer-centric
interface, customer-centric interface system 10 and customer
performance engine 40 continually monitor the performance of the
customer-centric interface checking for low customer satisfaction
levels, low task completion rates, or high positive response times
at step 88. When customer-centric interface system 10 discovers an
unsatisfactory post-implementation result such as those described
above, customer-centric interface system 10 determines the cause of
the problem and modifies the customer-centric interface to correct
the problem. As long as the customer-centric interface is
accessible by the customers, customer-centric interface system 10
monitors the customer-centric interface performance and modifies
the customer-centric interface to allow for customer-centric menu
prompts that are worded in the terminology of the customers, that
directly match the tasks that the customers are trying to
accomplish, and that are ordered and grouped by customer task
frequencies and the customers' perceptions of task
relationships.
FIG. 4 illustrates a block flow diagram of how collection engine
32, customer language engine 34, task frequency engine 36, customer
structure engine 38, and customer performance engine 40 of
customer-centric interface system 10 interact and interoperate to
automatically create the customer-centric interface. In addition,
FIG. 4 also represents the various functions for collection engine
32, customer language engine 34, task frequency engine 36, customer
structure engine 38, and customer performance engine 40.
Collection engine 32 gathers customer intention information from
the customer opening statements and includes customer task model
150 which includes the list of tasks for which the customers access
and use the customer-centric interface. Customer language engine
34, task frequency engine 36, and customer structure engine 38
perform their various functions by processing and manipulating the
customer intention information and task list.
Customer language engine 34 develops customer-centric menu prompts
for the customer-centric interface using the customers own
terminology. Customer language engine 34 analyzes-the customers'
language by analyzing and tracking every word used by the customers
in the customer opening statements to get a feel for how the
customers refer to each of the tasks. Customer language engine 34
counts each word in each customer opening statement to determine
which words the customers use the most and thereby recognize which
of the customers' words are best to use in creating
customer-centric menu prompts using the customers own
terminology.
In addition to creating customer-centric menu prompts using the
customers own terminology, in alternate embodiments of
customer-centric interface system 10 customer language engine 34
may also create customer-centric menu prompts using action specific
object words taken from the customer opening statements.
FIG. 5 illustrates a flow diagram for creating customer-centric
menu prompts utilizing action specific object words. Customer
wordings of tasks in customer opening statements are generally in
four different styles: action-object ("I need to order CALLNOTES"),
action ("I need to make changes"), object ("I don't understand my
bill"), and general ("I have some questions"). Menu prompts are
typically worded in one of four styles: action specific object ("To
order CALLNOTES press one"), specific object ("For CALLNOTES press
two"), general object ("To order a service press three"), and
action general object ("For all other questions press four").
The style of the menu prompt wording can have an effect on the
performance of the menu prompt due to the customers interaction
with the menu prompt. Wording menu prompts as action specific
object is typically the best way to word customer-centric menu
prompts because upon hearing a an action specific object menu
prompt, the customer generally knows that it is the menu prompt
they want to select and therefore response times decrease because
customers do not have to repeat the menu prompts in order to make a
selection. For example, if a customer calls wanting to order
CALLNOTES and the second option in the six option menu prompt is
"To order CALLNOTES press two" then the customer will typically
press two without listening to the rest of the menu prompts and
therefore have a negative response time, high customer
satisfaction, and high task accomplishment rate.
In order to create customer-centric menu prompts using action
specific object words, customer language engine 34 determines the
action words and object words used by the customers. At step 152,
customer language engine 34 analyzes the customer opening
statements in customer opening statement database 20 in order to
identify the action words and the object words used by the
customers in their opening statements. In addition to identifying
the action words and the object words, customer language engine 34
also determines which of the action words are specific action words
and which of the object words are specific object words. For
instance, "order" and "pay" are specific action words and
"CALLNOTES" and "Call Waiting" are specific object words while
"service" and "question" are not specific object words.
At step 154, customer language engine 34 saves the specific action
words in specific action database 22 and the specific object words
in specific object database 24. When saving the specific action
words and the specific object words, customer language engine 34
identifies and maintains the relationships between the specific
action words and the specific object words by linking the specific
action words with the specific object words that were used together
by the customers as shown by arrows 156 in FIG. 5. For example, for
the customer opening statements of "I want to buy CALLNOTES" and "I
want to inquire about my bill," "buy" and "inquire" are the
specific action words and "CALLNOTES" and "bill" are the specific
object words. When customer language engine 34 saves the respective
specific action words and specific object words in databases 22 and
24, a link will be maintained between "buy" and "CALLNOTES" and
between "inquire" and "bill." Maintaining how the customers use the
action words and object words in databases 22 and 24 prevents
erroneous combinations of specific action words and specific object
words when creating customer-centric menu prompts. An example
erroneously combined menu prompt is "To buy a bill press one" since
the statement would not make sense to the customer. The linking of
the specific action words with the specific object words which the
customer used together allows for the formation of correct
customer-centric menu prompts that make sense to the customers.
In addition to storing the specific action words and the specific
object words in databases 22 and 24, customer language engine 34
also calculates a frequency of occurrence for each specific action
word and each specific object word and stores the specific action
words and the specific object words in databases 22 and 24 in
accordance with the frequency of occurrence in descending frequency
order. Therefore, the specific action words having the highest
frequency of occurrence are stored at the top of specific action
database 22 and the specific object words having the highest
frequency of occurrence are stored at the top of specific object
database 24.
Once customer language engine 34 determines the frequency of
occurrence and stores the specific action words and the specific
object words, at step 158 customer language engine 34 generalizes
the specific action words into general groups of specific action
words and generalizes the specific object words into general groups
of specific object words. Customer language engine 34 examines the
specific action words and the specific object words for
commonalties and then groups the specific action words and the
specific object words together in groups based on the commonalties.
For example, the specific action words of "buy," "order," and
"purchase" all share the commonality of acquiring something and may
be grouped together. The specific object words of "CALLNOTES" and
"Call Waiting" share the commonality of being residential telephone
services and therefore may be grouped together. Customer language
engine 34 assigns names for each of the general groups of specific
action words and the specific object words and saves the general
action words in general action database 26 and the general object
words in general object database 28 at step 160.
Having specific action database 22, specific object database 24,
general action database 26, and general object database 28 allows
for a great resource for customer language engine 34 to locate
customer terminology when creating customer-centric menu prompts.
For creating upper level hierarchical menu prompts, customer
language engine 34 uses words from general action database 26 and
general object database 28. To create action specific object menu
prompts in the words of the customers for lower level hierarchical
menu prompts, customer language engine 34 uses words from specific
action database 22 and specific object database 24. Because the
specific action words and the specific object words are ordered by
frequency in databases 22 and 24, customer language engine 34 can
create action specific object menu prompts using the customer
terminology most often used by the customers.
While customer language engine 34 determines the customer
terminology and wording to use for the customer-centric menu
prompts, task frequency engine 36 determines the frequency of
occurrence for the tasks that the customers call about and also
determines which tasks will be included in the customer-centric
interface. Generally the customer opening statements are from more
than one call center so when determining the frequency of
occurrence for each task, task frequency engine 36 takes into
account the volume of calls into each call center when constructing
the task frequency table so that the frequency results are
accurate. Frequency of occurrence data must be weighted so that a
call center receiving three million calls does not have the same
weight as a call center receiving ten million calls.
Once task frequency engine 36 determines the tasks to be included
in the customer-centric interface including all tasks down to 1%
frequency or to a percentage coverage, customer structure engine 38
elicits customer perceived task relationships for the included
tasks as described above. Utilizing the customer perceived task
relationships, customer structure engine 38 creates interface
structure for the customer-centric interface and represents the
interface structure both as a numerical data matrix and a graphical
representation.
At box 162, customer language engine 34, task frequency engine 36,
and customer structure engine 38 work together to automatically
create the customer-centric interface. Customer language engine 34
contributes the wording of the customer-centric menu prompts in the
customers own terminology for the customer-centric interface. Task
frequency engine 36 provides the tasks that are to be included in
the customer-centric interface, the ordering of the groups of tasks
in the menu prompts, and the ordering of the tasks within the
groups of tasks. Customer structure engine 38 provides the
interface structure or grouping of tasks for the customer-centric
interface. After the automated creation of the customer-centric
interface, customer performance engine 40 performs usability tests
on the customer-centric interface as described above and evaluates
and reconfigures the customer-centric interface based on customer
satisfaction, task accomplishment, and response times during both
the testing phase and implementation.
Customer-centric interface system 10 allows for the automated
creation of a customer-centric interface that directly matches menu
prompts with customer tasks, orders and groups the tasks and menu
options by the task frequency of occurrence and the customer
perceived task relationships, and states the menu prompts using the
customers own terminology. Although the present invention has been
described in detail with respect to an IVR system, customer-centric
interface system 10 may also be utilized for the automated creation
of customer-centric interfaces for web sites with respect to
developing content for the web site, designs of the web pages, and
what tasks to locate on different web pages.
Although the present invention has been described in detail, it
should be understood that various changes, substitutions and
alterations can be made hereto without the parting from the spirit
and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims.
* * * * *